City News

A quorum being present at Centerville City Hall, 250 North Main
Street, Centerville, Utah, the meeting of the Centerville City Planning Commission
was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Acting Chairman Brian Hulse.

Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting held March 27,
2002 were reviewed. Brain Hulse made a motion to approve the minutes as written.
The motion was seconded by Grant Talbot and passed by unanimous vote (3-0).
Ken Averett abstained from voting as he was not present at the meeting.

Don Atkinson, representative for the applicant, respectfully
requested that the public hearing on this item be postponed until the next Planning
Commission meeting on April 24, 2002. He explained that they would like the
additional time to send out a complete notice to the public with all changes
that are being proposed. He invited the public that attended this evening to
meet with him outside the Council chamber to discuss any questions they may
have.

Brian Hulse made a motion to table this item until April 24,
2002 based on the applicants request. Steven Bateman seconded the motion, which
passed by unanimous vote (4-0).

Brian Hulse, Acting Chairman, explained to the applicant that
the public notice sent to surrounding residences regarding this rezone was technically
incorrect. He explained that to comply with the ordinance this rezone needs
to be re-noticed. He stated that the Planning Commission is willing to move
forward at this time if the applicant so desires, but that he (the applicant)
should be aware that this could cause a potential problem in the future if someone
chooses to contest it. Mr. Hulse further explained that a correct notice will
be sent to surrounding residences prior to City Council review, but that it
still has the potential to be sent back to the Planning Commission. The applicant
acknowledged the risk and asked the Planning Commission to proceed.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported that the
applicants are requesting a rezone approval for 2.8 acres of land from R-1-10
to R-1-85 while the R-1-85 Zone requires 8,500 square foot lots, the applicant
intends to keep each lot at at least a 10,000 square foot minimum. The applicant
is requesting the rezone only for the greater flexibility in setbacks, especially
in the rear yard, for lots that are being proposed in the Duncan Hill Subdivision.
The proposed rezone area includes some existing homes, one of which, has a nonconforming
setback that would be remedied by this rezone. The General Plan calls for all
future housing in the northeast part of the city to be low-density, single-family
zoning. In staff opinion, the R-1-85 Zone is a low-density zone. Most surrounding
properties are zoned R-1-10; however, there is R-1-85 zoning no more than 250
feet from this property. In recent years the City has approved similar zoning
proposals for such projects as the Park Hills I and II Subdivisions. The uses
in the R-1-85 Zone are identical to those uses in the R-1-10 Zone; therefore,
there should be little concern about the zoning allowing future uses that would
not have been allowed otherwise. Staff opinion is that the Planning Commission
should recommend approval of the petition to the City Council with appropriate
findings to support the action.

Acting Chairman Hulse opened the public hearing.

Janet Dye, 535 East 400 North, stated that her back yard
borders the rear yard of the proposed lots and she is concerned that with the
decreased setback, the homes will be "in her face". She also asked if there
was any requirement that would force residents to construct a fence around these
lots. Mr. Allred stated that he is not aware of any requirement for fencing
in this type of subdivision.

Mr. Allred stated that he received a phone call from Della Mae
Keel (483 East 400 North) who is strongly opposed to this petition or any development.
She would like to see this lot stay as it is.

Acting Chairman Hulse closed the public hearing.

Brian Hulse asked if there was any way to require that there
be no more than eight lots to guarantee that the lots stay at the 10,000 square-foot
minimum. He does not want to see any additional lots created if the R-1-85 Zone
is approved, which only requires 8,500 square foot lots.

Mr. Allred stated that the mathematics of the site along with
the required 50 feet for a public road would probably preclude any additional
lots from being possible, but that the Planning Commission could make the 8-lot
maximum a condition of the conceptual subdivision approval.

Steven Bateman made a motion to recommend approval of this rezone
petition to the City Council based on the following:

1. The rezone petition is consistent with adjacent zoning.

2. The proposed lot sizes will be at least 10,000 square feet.
It is the clear preference and the intention of the Planning Commission upon
conceptual subdivision approval to require the lot sizes be fixed at 10,000
square feet, thereby, allowing an 8-lot subdivision maximum.

3. The uses allowed in the R-1-85 Zone are consistent with
surrounding zoning.

4. The rezone is not contrary to the public interest.

5. The rezone petition is reasonable and necessary.

6. The rezone petition does not deviate from the future long-range
goals of the General Plan, which calls for low-density, single-family zoning
in the Northeast part of the City.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported the applicants
are requesting approval of an 8-lot single-family subdivision. Three of the
lots that will be incorporated into this subdivision have pre-existing homes.
All lots will be 10,000 square feet or more in area. The project is not located
in the Hillside Overlay area and is not subject to those regulations. Major
flooding has occurred here in the past; including a catastrophic flood in the
1930's that left several flood channels running through the site. Staff is concerned
about the location of the project as it relates to the Davis County debris basin
directly to the east and the potential for flooding. Staff is also concerned
about potential seismic and groundwater risks. Staff has visited the site and
feel that a subdivision may be appropriate if the hazards inherent to the area
can be mitigated. The applicant has been advised that staff is recommending
the Planning Commission require additional studies such as flood, geotechnical,
groundwater, and seismic be performed to assure the project is viable. Staff
recommends approval of the conceptual subdivision with the following conditions:

1. Submittal of a couple of minor items as required.

2. Direction to the applicant that further studies will be
needed for preliminary plat approval as mentioned above.

Steven Bateman asked what the City’s responsibility would be
if this project proved to be a liability once it is approved. He also asked
who is responsible for the cost of such studies. Mr. Hulse stated that in the
past they have approved similar subdivisions. He explained that a plat note
is usually required stating that studies show the project is viable, but that
there may still be a risk. Mr. Allred also stated that as part of the building
permit process for lots such as these, the applicant will be signing a form
stating that they are aware they are developing in a hazardous area. He also
stated that the applicant pays for most of the studies, but that the City might
be willing to consult with Davis County, owner of the debris basin, regarding
studies in the case.

Acting Chairman Hulse opened the public hearing, seeing there
was no comment he closed the public hearing.

Brian Hulse asked what the size of the proposed new earth berm
would be and how effective it would be against flood water in a storm. Grant
Talbot stated he feels there should be more concern regarding snow melt run-off
than another catastrophic flood. Mr. Allred stated that they would consult with
Davis County Public Works and perhaps another geotechnical firm to verify these
measures (earth berm and the debris basin ) will be adequate for flood control.

Bill Duncan, applicant, stated that the danger of a flood is
more wide spread than just his lot. He stated that surrounding properties are
also at risk and yet they have all been approved. He referred to a study done
by Utah State University that stated the flood in the 1930's was directly related
to over grazing in the mountains by the early settlers. He stated that since
then the mountains have been re-vegetated, thereby, lowering the risk of a flood.

Grant Talbot made a motion to approve the conceptual subdivision
with the following conditions:

1. Submittal of a couple of minor items as required by staff.

2. Detailed flood, geotechnical, groundwater, and seismic
studies will need to be performed per staff recommendations.

Paul Allred, Community Development Director, reported that the
applicants have submitted a petition to vacate their home from the Windsor Lane
Subdivision. They had to do this in order to obtain property from the landowner
to the east who is not in the same plat as the applicants. Property owners who
are not in the same subdivision may not exchange property by simple lot line
adjustments. The applicants would like to build a storage shed to the side and
rear of the existing home. Various easements have been vacated and accepted
by the City for the property to the east to accommodate a subdrain line along
the east boundary. By vacating the lot from the plat the applicants are now
proposing a new one-lot plat. The new public utility easements will be recorded
with this plat and the applicants will be able to build their detached garage.
Staff recommends approval of the one-lot plat with the following condition.

1. City Engineer review of the final plat prior to Council
consideration.

Brian Hulse made a motion to recommend approval of this one-lot
plat for the Beyeler Subdivision to the City Council with the condition that
the City Engineer review of the final plat occur prior to City Council consideration.
Steven Bateman seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous vote (4-0).

CODE AMENDMENT - Proposed change to Sections 12-320-3(5)(B),
12-320-4(5)(B), and 12-320-5(5)(B) of the Centerville City Planning and Zoning
Ordinance regarding side yards in the R-1-85, R-2, and R-3 Zones.

Kem Weaver, Intern, reported that currently zoning ordinances
are inconsistent when determining side yard setbacks for corner lots for residential
zones. The R-1-10 and A-1 Zones allow for a minimum 20-foot setback on any type
of street. The R-1-85 Zone allows for a minimum 20-foot setback on a non-arterial
or non-collector street but does not specifically state a figure in measurement
when abutting an arterial or collector street. The R-2 and R-3 Zones allow for
a minimum 20-foot setback unless it abuts onto an arterial or collector street,
then the minimum setback becomes 30 feet.

Staff is in agreement that the language in these ordinances
ought to be amended by omitting the last part of the side yard regulations "except
where side yard abuts an arterial or collector street, the side yard shall be
thirty feet (30')". Findings to support this action may include:

1. Staff feels all residential zoning ordinances should be
consistent, A-1 through R-3.

2. Thirty-foot setbacks severely reduce available area, making
it harder to develop on a lot.

3. Homes and buildings closer to the street, along with landscaping,
may act as a traffic-calming device.

4. A smaller home on an 8,500 square foot lot would require
more landscaping which would require a higher rate of water usage.

5. The R-2 lot has 8,000 square feet and the R-3 lot has 7,500
square feet for the first dwelling and then 2,500 square feet for each additional
dwelling. With these lot areas being smaller, a 30-foot minimum setback would
greatly reduce the footprint(s) of the dwelling(s), and therefore, decrease
the flexibility of housing styles that could be accommodated.

Brian Hulse stated that he spoke with Lisa Romney, Assistant
City Attorney, who stated that she did not recommend 20 feet or 30 feet, just
merely suggests consistency. Mr. Hulse also stated that he spoke with Planning
Commissioner Scott Vaterlaus who stated that a larger setback is always better
with respect to site distance, but that it may not be feasible for development.
Mr. Hulse stated that Mr. Vaterlaus said that unless the 20-foot setback created
a sight distance problem, issues with not being able to see oncoming traffic,
or some other public hazard he feels 20 feet is adequate. He too (Mr. Vaterlaus),
would like to see all zones consistent in setback requirements.

Steven Bateman asked if the notion of smaller setbacks vs. larger
setbacks when adjacent to arterial roads is documented or subjective. Mr. Allred
stated that there are probably national standards regarding setbacks and that
the City could research this further, if necessary. Staff would just like the
ordinance for all zones to be consistent, whether it be 20 or 30 feet.

Grant Talbot stated that he feels the main purpose for this
setback is for sight distance and merging traffic. He stated that he feels with
the low speed limits in Centerville a 20-foot setback is adequate.

Steven Bateman made a motion to recommend approval of the Code
amendment to change the minimum setback to 20 feet for side yards on corner
lots in the R-1-85, R-1 and R-2 Zones based on the following findings:

1. Residential zoning ordinances should be consistent, A-1
through R-3.

2. Thirty-foot setbacks severely reduce available area, making
it harder to develop on a lot.

3. Homes and buildings closer to the street, along with landscaping,
act as a traffic-calming device.

4. Smaller homes on a 8,500 square foot lot would require
more landscaping which would require a higher rate of water usage.

5. A 30-foot minimum setback on smaller lots greatly reduces
the footprint(s) of the dwelling(s), and therefore, decrease the flexibility
of housing styles that can be accommodated.

b. Neil Lindberg, consultant, will be heading up the zoning
rewrite for the City which may take a year or more to complete.

3. Other

a. Steve Blackham stated that the village is still alive
and that some development proposals should be coming before the Planning
Commission in the near future. He proposed another field trip be taken to
look more closely at the actual process of developing a village. He asked
the Planning Commission if they felt this would be helpful and if they would
be willing to attend. Planning Commission members were in favor of another
field trip.